Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L w/ IS and w/o IS?

Trying to get some opinions on these two lenses? My wife has been doing photography as a hobby for some time now and this past Dec. I bought her a Rebel XTI, which she loves. She has been taking photos at family events and some of her friends. I'd like to go ahead an invest in a really nice lense that will be used frequently. I've read that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is a great lense to shoot with, especially in a photojournalism style.

My question is, shooting a wedding for example, will the 70-200mm without IS work? Using this lense without a tripod, will the IS be required or is possible to shoot without IS if you have an average steady hand? I ask, because although she's not shooting weddings right now, I know that is her long-term goal. Niether lense is cheap, and I want to get the right one, but if I'm able to save $500-$600 bucks... that would really help. Thanks for the suggestions and any help.

IS, is an amazing tool to have. It gives you the ability to get sharper shots at much slower shutter speeds than you would otherwise be able to get. What it can't do, however, is freeze motion by the subjects...so even if you can get a sharper photo at slower speeds, if those speeds are not fast enough to freeze the motion...you will still get blurry shots.

That being said, the IS will most likely increase the number of 'keepers', which is important for photo-journalistic shooting and weddings. Especially with a telephoto like this.

I think it's obvious that the IS lens is the better choice...but it comes down to the cost difference. If you/she plans to use this as a tool in a wedding photography business, then I'd say it's a good investment. Even if she doesn't end up using it, it could probably be resold for around 90% of the cost.

IS, is an amazing tool to have. It gives you the ability to get sharper shots at much slower shutter speeds than you would otherwise be able to get. What it can't do, however, is freeze motion by the subjects...so even if you can get a sharper photo at slower speeds, if those speeds are not fast enough to freeze the motion...you will still get blurry shots.

That being said, the IS will most likely increase the number of 'keepers', which is important for photo-journalistic shooting and weddings. Especially with a telephoto like this.

I think it's obvious that the IS lens is the better choice...but it comes down to the cost difference. If you/she plans to use this as a tool in a wedding photography business, then I'd say it's a good investment. Even if she doesn't end up using it, it could probably be resold for around 90% of the cost.

to give you an idea, i'm able to shoot at 1/15th at 200mm with IS on...but i don't usually...i just tested it the other day. i can almost always get acceptable images at 1/40th at any focal length (assuming that the subject isn't moving) with it. this is extremely helpful in many situations, but not everyone will need it.

Just to let the OP know (as he's not the photographer) to take a sharp image generally you want around 1/focal length. So on the non-IS lens ou need 1/200th sec to get a sharp image at maximum zoom. This is ok outside but take that into a church or anywhere indoors and shutter speeds could be anywhere around 1/30th - 1/80th (possibly slower)!!

Only IS will allow you to use longer focal lengths and get sharp images.

The 70-200 f2.8L IS is one of the best though bear in mind that it's a heavy lens!! I find it ok but a woman may prefer lighter - the 70-200 f4L IS could also be an option but the difference in that one stop can be quite a lot in lower light.

I have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 that I use for band photos at clubs. It's great to have the f2.8 but I also would love to have IS. If you can justify the cost do it. And I found that 70-200 is perfect for large rooms, you can stand back and still get good close ups.